I saw this movie but forgot about this scene. I just saw the Waterloo(1970) which was terrific. Wellington had scouted the area in 1814 and had surveyers maps drawn up. As soon as he heard where Napoleon would be coming from, he set his trap. The positioning on the downslope of a ridge made Napoleon's artillery mostly ineffective.
Though in typical British style he tried to support the Prussians at Ligny despite wanting to fight at Waterloo, as is also often the case with British forces historically (We don't do the last minute cavalry thing so well) he failed whether by accident or on purpose I am unsure.
Houston was a remarkable person. I don't know everything about him, but he was very accomplished and intelligent. He was governor of both Tennessee and Texas. He was president of the republic of Texas. Without him, Texas wouldn't have won their independence. When they caught Santa Anna, everyone wanted to execute him. But Houston kept him alive to secure Texas as a republic. He was right about a lot of things in his life. It's sad his last years were in turmoil as he was opposed to Texas leaving the union during the civil war. He was ostracized for it, when he knew that it was not in the best interest of Texas and they would lose in the end.
I think he was also patient. Everyone else wanted revenge and to fight the Mexicans right away. He put aside emotions so he could make a good decision based on strategy and not anger or vengeance. There’s a lesson in it
Houston was a key part, but believe me gringo, We mexicans could NEVER stand a chance against the giant of the North, we would´ve lost half of our territory anyways. With or without any of the heroes of the texan war. With or without our Santa Anna shit. 21 Gun salute from México City. DON´T MESS WITH TEXAS.
I’ve been to that battle field east of Houston more than once. Even on a hot day I get chills standing where the Texians (as they called themselves) defeated Santa Anna.
@@tannerjordan3754 It actually IS kinda ironic that Lee and so many future confederates officers actually fought the same dictator and army in the 1840s that the Texians did just a decade earlier. Maybe that was where he was inspired with that tactic.
@@royroland3884 ah yes, the progressive and forward thinking mexicans, theyve made mexico the utopia it is today. Santa anna wanted to post mexican soldiers in texas.
Hardship and trials are the whetstone that sharpen a persons character and make them into a fine blade. You cannot make them happen and not all "blades" endure the test, some break under the merest pressure. Be glad for any person such as he we meet and try to be like them.
@@edwardhogan1877 , no one is perfect, some of the more remarkable people in history has been the biggest murderers for what they though was a good cause and personally totally different to their public life.
@@greattribulation1388 There were plenty of people of Mexican descent fighting on the side of Texas independence. It's time you learned about them instead of making assumptions.
Interesting history related to Sam Houston and Lin Manuel Miranda of Broadway Hamilton. The grandfather of Lin Manuel 4-5 generations back named David Towns gave the toast speech at the wedding of the Governor Texas Sam Houston. Quote from book excerpt. "perhaps the most unusual toast was made by an old friend of Margarets father, Major Townes, who had been designated "President of the day" brought cheers from the crowd with his eloquent tribute:" I presume our honored guest will not deny in spite of all his San Jacinto and other victories, that he has been compelled to trail his banner and bow suppliant knee at the feet of our fair townswoman. I give you therefore, gentleman, if not of a better man than General Houston, that of one whom he himself will admit to be his "better half"-the Conqueress of the conqueror-Mrs Margaret M. Houston." No doubt Houston enjoyed the toast.
i live 10 miles from San Jacinto Battleground and thank God every day for allowing me to live among the proud descendants of the greatest state in the Union.
That's actually wrong. War is deception was actually said by Mohammed, one of the greatest and most violent warlords that ever lived and more than likely the antichrist himself. I doubt he read the Art of War as he could not read.
While Wellington was at his best on the defensive, and he did indeed commit a few mistakes during the battle, Napoleon's ego got the better of him here. He ascribed to the axiom 'In war, morale is everything' and didn't respect any commander that was anything but French nationality. By respecting an enemy, you learn to never be taken by surprise. Houston was very aware his very brittle army had, at the most, one good fight in them. He was also aware by staying one step ahead of the Mexican army, Santa Anna would, in his fervor to catch him, splinter his army and march them to exhaustion, depriving them of any fighting prowess.
I have studied Wellington for years, to define him as a "Defensive General" is to show that you have not studied his campaigns in India or The Peninsula. You don't out manoeuvre marharratta cavalry using infantry without being offensive. You do not crush the Marshalls of France by defending. You do not storm Badajoz (without even the aid of siege guns) by being defensive.
If it wasn't for Ney's fucking charge (and indirectly napoleons hernia/stomach cancer), Wellington would've been beaten. It took a bit for him to take the bait, but the diversion attack on Hougoumont had allowed La Haye Saint to be taken, and wellington was moving to his reverse slope to get out of napoleons artillery. Napoleon would've seen this and not taken the bait, instead opting to secure his gains and wait for his supposed 'reinforcements'. Had Grouchy came directly to the engagement after that he would've stood a very good chance of routing wellingtons army and bringing the coalition to the peace table. Even without Ney's charge, it was a done deal when the prussians arrive.
San Jacinto! I lived right next to the washburn tunnel where Santa Anna was captured. It's kinda run down. Not taken care of. Right next to a big oil refinery
an old strategy can be useful in these days... it depends on what age where are, but to imagine how they use the strategy, sometimes is helpful... sometimes...
San Jacinto doesn’t look anything like that btw.. it’s mostly marshland. Flooded at sea level with no room for massive troop, or ordinance movement. He basically trapped them by the beach and then rushed right into them.
Key pieces of History such as those's are So Cool too Learn. When Great Leader's or Men of incredible Vision can Plan or Strategically set up the Demise of another accomplished Leader. By Simply analysing & calculating Thier Movements. Unto Thier ultimate Defeat or Repulse by reading Thier Over Confidence into Thier Habits. Case in Point was Sam Houston, before The Battle of San Jacinto, & Santa Anna, or in 1863 at Chancellorsville, when Robert E Lee, pulled Off His Stunning Defeat of Joe Hooker there. There have been many Such Great Deeds performed Over the Centuries by Very Great Leaders. Thank You for Sharing with US.
Sam Houston was a man of principle, loyalty and honor. He was the only member of the Texas legislature to oppose secession and he paid the price for it.
Both of Houston's parents were descended from Scottish and Irish immigrants who had settled in Colonial America in the 1730s. Houston's father was descended from Ulster Scots people.
He wanted his good friend Andrew Jackson to annex TX & prob didnt care about the republic except to expedite statehood.. Travis was nuts for trying to hold the Alamo w/ so few men tho. Maybe if Houston hadnt been drunk.in east Texas dreaming of former DC glory he could have established better comms between Goliad & Alamo and they could have helped this grand Wellington/ R E Lee plan he talks about in this clip but I'm afraid that the reality was prob much more political than noble unfortunately for those who lived in between Mexico City and San Jacinto TX
Wellington in real life had scouted Waterloo in advance and already knew where he would make his stand. This retelling also omits the Prussian army that hit Napoleon’s flank causing the utter defeat. Not saying Sam himself made this error in a potential retelling but this movie made that mistake
You have to almost try to screw up as bad as they screwed up Texas Rising. The source material is out there, the interest is out there, they even dug up Brendan Fraser. But they still screwed it up.
@Hoa Tattis Read better What I said was "Wellington tried to find an opportunity to crush Napoleon's army between his and Blucher's" That did not mean Wellington's army had to move at all, in fact his plan was for Blucher to come to him. And pre-battle Wellington did move, to Waterloo from Quatre Bras, to entice Napoleon to follow him, after he received Blucher's promise of aid.
@Hoa Tattis If it is you would have understood that this statement: "Wellington tried to find an opportunity to crush Napoleon's army between his and Blucher's" ....did not mean that Wellington is moving around. Wellington could have stayed perfectly still, and had Blucher come to him, and thats still crushing Napoleon between him and Blucher. Simple English.
Santa Ana’s army was very strong in the Texas Revolution it was a modern well disciplined force. But by the Mexican American war it was a rabble. In Mexico City there is a memorial called the cadets and it memorializes children in the cadet school who fought for the defense of Mexico City. It shows you how shamed the whole officer tree of Santa Ana had become that they had fallen to be such great cowards. Once something to be proud of tho
It's a movie of course they will show the Mexican army as very powerful and santa Anna very evil. Yet the Texas rebels were fighting for the right to own slaves
In the course of traveling Wellington had actually ridden over what became the Waterloo battlefield some months before and recorded his thoughts on how the topography could be used in battle. Not then knowing he'd have a chance to test that. It was a matter of getting to it first such that Napoleon had to attack him on ground Wellington judged as favouring his preferred defensive and counterpunching strategy.
We were actually losing the battle, Napoleon had sent the Imperial Guard forward, Blücher with his Prussian Armie that appeared on the skyline that tipped it in our our way. (The French thought it was Marshcal Ney), after that they broke and fled.
@@neilwattis1651No we werent. This argument always makes it sound like chance. The Prussians arrival had been planned back and forth between the two so it would have the maximum effect. The entire point of the battle was to get Napoleon to fully commit. Once he did it was simply a matter of the forces against him holding out until the Prussian arrival completed the noose. They were not riding to the rescue they were arriving to carry out their agreed role in the battle.
And again. Texans with American rifles, But Santa Ana's Great Mexan Army did have similiar Riflemen armed exactly with Green Jackets's Baker Rifles! and said he used this 'Riflemen' (Cazaroes?) in Alamo. The very same weapon Wellington's army has when he deployed his famous 95th Rifles in Waterloo and fought in Linear Infantry style just like any footmen and stood their ground against Napoleon's Army including his mighty Imperial Guard. Note that Mexican Army uniform is loosely followed French Grand Armee while US Army of that time looked very similiar to Prussians in the late Napoleonic Wars. very simplified to cope with severed production capacities of that time.
Well actually he did, "Opportunity to flank", which was what the Prussians did, they literally poured into Nap's flank, Wellington needed only to hold on long enough.
Wellington had said several times he had seen the Waterloo battle field more than a year prior to the real event, and had kept it in mind ever since. He had stayed in Belgium because it was the most unobstructed route to the sea and for Blucher and if necessary any Russian forces to arrive unimpeded. He had been scouting and manoeuvring all around southern Belgium trying to figure out where Napoleon would strike. So yes, what he said was exactly what happened.
He (or rather person who wrote this script), mixed Wellington's tactics in Spain with actual Waterloo. One true thing is, that it was mostly Napoleon's mistakes, and more importantly his staff's and senior subordinates, that ensured his defeat.
they be horrified, because they thought that black people and Mexicans shouldn't be equal, so thank God we don't live in their horribly unequal world anymore
1:35 Actually no one in Mexico called Santa Anna the "Napoleon of the West" , as far as I know Santa Anna told that to Houston to impress him after Santa Anna was captured at San Jacinto.
Yea but adopted English culture and spoke with an English accent he considered himself English and spent most of his life in England when someone referred to him as Irish he said “just because a man is born in a stable does not make him a horse.”
Sam Houston literally had Santa Anna tied up, the entire Texas calvary huddled around him and Santa Anna. The Texans wanted to execute Santa Anna, and Houston could have done it with ease but he chose to free him in exchange for Texas. Another fun fact about Houston, when the debate came up in the Texas capital, whether they should join the confederacy, Houston argued that Texas needed to remain Texas and not part of any confederacy. He didn’t feel the confederate’s war was a Texas war. Obviously Texas would vote to join the confederacy anyway.
It should also be noted that Sam Houston refused to take an oath to the Confederacy, or to resign as Governor. He was deposed! He wanted to keep Texas completely OUT of the coming war! Like Switzerland! Others saw it as an opportunity to take the office for themselves, and further their own ends, which ultimately FAILED. Also, of all the slave states, Texas had the fewest. And everyone forgets the four slave states that stayed in the union; Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. I think Houston was hoping to reform the Republic of Texas, and keep it OUT of DC politics; it's well known he HATED DC politics! He loved Texas.
Everyone from Texas (including me) hold him in high regard. And we should, but we should also remember he got run out of Texas because he didn’t want to secede and join the Confederacy. Funny how we pick me choose out history
Actually, Wellington knew the ground a year and a half in advance, when viewing the area on horseback. He fought at Waterloo because he knew it was advantageous.
While Confederate Independence will forever be shaded by the Dark Cloud of Slavery, Texan Independence really CAN be looked back on with pride, in the same manner as our original American Revolution, as both countries truly were founded on the basis of liberty and democracy, against a tyrant.
@@jameskrych7767 yes... but Texas sesseeded from the Union to protect slavery... just like the rest of the Confederate States, so it would make no sense for them NOT to join the C.S.A., which is why they did. They had the same enemies and the same endgoals, THAT'S why all the Confederate State's sessesions from the Union were tainted, they all sesseeded to protect slavery, even if (for whatever reason) they didn't join the C.S.A. Back during the Texas Revolution against Mexico, the Texans sesseeded from Mexico to protect THEMSELVES, Santa Anna was a ruthless Dictator, and MANY Mexican States and territories rebelled at the same time, for the same reasons.
@@dilloncrowe1018 I am reminded of an old but timely verse from Scripture: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." If it were only slavery. Perhaps losing 80 plus percent of all Federal revenue was a major cause to go to war. The North wanted empire, and the South wanted independence.
@@jameskrych7767 federal revenue back then came from import taxes, and it most all came from Northern State's, New York merchants alone had been paying over 60% of all the governments federal revenue, at least 5 years before the American Civil War.
Napoleon was bound to defeat Napoleon if the Prussians did not arrive in the battlefield. With Grouchy not intercepting the Prussians, that left Napoleon vulnerable and he had decided to commit the Old Guard against the well positioned British center that delivered disciplined fire in a last ditch attempt
Wellesley also said ''The French came at us in the same old way, and we beat them in the same old way.Check out his Peninsula campaign,he beat every French marshal Napoleon sent against his army.
Blitzofthereich He probably meant that there was an opportunity for Napoleon to be flanked by Blucher and the Prussian army, which is what happened at Waterloo.
Houston doesn't know the Waterloo campaign very well...but that's not really surprising. Most amateurs don't know it. Wellington attempted to fight part of Napoleon's 'splintered' force at Quatre Bras a few days before Waterloo. He was unsuccessful at uniting with Blucher's Prussian army which was defeated at Ligny by the main body of Napoleon's force. Wellington then fell back to Waterloo, as it was a defensible position on the road to Brussels from whence he could be reached by Blucher's redeploying army. He did not 'bait' Napoleon...nor did he 'move and wait.' He KNEW Napoleon would be focused on destroying his army. So he positioned himself in a place that he thought victory might be possible if he could hold out long enough...i.e., until mid-afternoon the next day (he roughly knew the position of Blucher's advancing Corps). In the event, Napoleon dithered when disposing his pursuing troops after Ligny (a whole 24 hours!) and then wasted the morning of the Waterloo battle waiting for the ground to dry...he didn't begin his battle until 11AM. Blucher's forces were on the field flanking Napoleon by 1:30 PM, and was in force sufficient to deny victory to Napoleon by 4-5PM. But hey...when trying to get your men to do what they must...you come up with a good story!
I don't disagree with everything here but just to point out the leading Prussian elements arrived on Wellington left flank and reinforced it, Prussian troops didn't arrive on the French flank till much later. it's also worth pointing out that at Quatre Bras Wellington wasn't fighting the Splinted French force with his full army which I'm sure you know I'm just clarifying it, Wellington himself arrived late in the day and for over half the battle the Anglo-Allied army was outnumbered, like i say only the clarification because from your post it makes it sound like Wellington had his full army at Quatre bras when he didn't.
Wellington was sort of sipping on gasps of air and sips of hope at Waterloo himself. The entire chance of victory hinged on the Prussians. Without the Prussians, Wellington loses. Napoleon had to use all of Lobau's corps, two cavalry divisions, the young guard, as well as elements of the old guard to hold the Prussians at Plancenoit(for hours and hours I might add.) Had the Prussians not made it to Waterloo, or if Grouchy had been able to avoid fighting at Wavre and intercepted them en route, Napoleon would have had all those forces he used against the Prussians to instead throw at Wellington. Wellington's center was a breath away from collapsing after the fall of La Haye Sainte. He was able to concentrate what remained of his army behind the ridge between Hougomont and La Haye Sainte only because the Prussians showed up and took over his left. Had none of this happened, and Napoleon had the entirety of Lobau's corps and the Imperial Guard to still throw at Wellington, there is but little doubt his army would have broken. The French Imperial Guard were by far the best troops on the planet at the time. Had they been able to close with Wellingtons forces, none of them, not even the Coldstream Guard, were a match for the French Imperial Guard. That isn't to say it was all luck for Wellington. He moved his knights and bishops with considerable skill during most of the day. He was cool as a cucumber and did not panic whenever things weren't going his way. His choice of terrain was masterful and there is no question that he was the man who could hold Napoleon at bay long enough for the Prussians to arrive. Wellington won at Waterloo, and he deserves his place in history. But its just as much Blucher's victory as well. To often the Prussians are treated as a footnote at Waterloo, when in reality, the battle would not have been won without them.
Priussians tend to be a foot note because of when they turned up more then anything else but of course your right it's probably most accurate to say neither could have won without the other. Just a side note you may not have known, Wellington had positioned 2 fresh infantry divisions (16,000 men) about 2 miles north of him, he decided it was better to have an exit strategy and effective fresh rear guard rather then have a numerical superiority on the battlefield itself, I find that both smart and ballsy :)
@@Delogros The 'when they turned up' depends on which source you believe. Wellingtons "Waterloo despatch" gives their arrival late in the afternoon. Both Prussian and French sources give the arrival of the first Prussians at 13:00. But you're right, nobody could win without the other. As a side note to your side note: it was not just an exit strategy that prompted Wellington to post those divisions to the rear. They were mainly Dutch/Belgian troops, and he had serious doubts they would remain loyal when faced with Napoleon himself (most of their officers had served in the Grande Armee), so he wanted them well out of the way.
@@GorinRedspear I would take the Prussian arrival time as when they could be combat effective, but that would take research which as I am a Key worker and so not locked in with nothing better to do, I don't wanna do :) Side notes are awesome. Wellington run allied armies tended to have mixed Divisions, in Spain/Portugal it was usually 1 Portuguese Brigade with 2 British Brigades to make up a division with the exception of the light and 1st divisions and 1 fully Portuguese division which where special cases, but I have no reason to think the main thrust of your information is wrong and it makes perfect sense, these things did happen after all, possibly most famously at Leipzig? Where 9,000 Saxons changed sides in the middle of the fighting. Can we do 3 side notes to side notes? Lets try! :D
@@Delogros I admit it was only the Prussian advance troops that started dripping in, but even so they forced Napoleon to act. When an advance guard is arriving, the main force is not that far behind, and every soldier he sent to contain them was one he could not send to Wellington. My main source in all this are the works of Johan Op De Beeck, a retired Belgian journalist who wrote a few works on Napoleon (and the period right after) as seen from the perspective of the Low Countries. It gives for some very novel, and sometimes disturbing insights. Did you know that Wellington was actually informed hours before he acted that the French had pushed north? But because the news had come from general Van Merlen, who had (literally) earned his spurs in the French Army, and even to that day cherished his Legion D'Honneur, he lost valuable time waiting for confirmation. The original message was that Dutch/Belgian Light Horse, while patrolling the border had ran into French Dragoons just north of the border and routed them. The confirmation was that the French had almost reached Charleroi... I agree: side notes are awesome. Van Merlen was killed at Waterloo in between charges. He had already led four charges into Ney's massive cavalry charge to relieve some pressure on Wellingtons squares. A cannonball disemboweled him, and his body was never found.
@@GorinRedspear awww... Now I feel sad... Waterloo was a very complicated situation for the allies and particularly the Anglo-allied army, I don't blame Wellington for being suspicious as a result, though hind sight is a wonderful thing.
Okay just so we are clear, that is, in no way, an accurate description of what happened preceding Waterloo. There was a Prussian army under Blucher outside the town of Ligny, and an anglo-allied army to his north. Napoleon, in typical fashion, moved quickly and engaged the prussians at Ligny and defeated them, driving them eastward and sending Marshall Grouchy after them. He then swung around to hit Wellingtons army from the east (imagine a figure 8 and hitting the bottom loop from the left, and top loop from the right.) Wellington hastily selected Waterloo because it had a small hill in the center, and 3 farmhouses to anchor his right, left, and center positions and dug in to repel the French onslaught. It was anything but a foregone conclusion and were it not for Grouchy's incompetence, Napoleon's lack of artillery, and Blucher's angry old man tenacity, they would have won at Waterloo half a dozen times over.
Hey Lesser Son. You are Entitled to Your Opinion No Doubt. But after the Heavy Fighting by both Sides that Day. And the Foolish Waste of the French Cavalry on the English & Anglo Army Square's that late Afternoon, at Waterloo. When Napoleon sent in His Grand Old Guard at the Last. He Knew then that the Battle was already Lost. And His Bolt had been Shot upon that Field. With the Coalition formed, & against Him. He knew He didn't have the Men at Arm's, the Logistics or even the Support of the Population of France too Continue the War. After the Battle of Waterloo, Napoleon even Surrendered Himself too the Foreign Power's, Authorities. To Save Paris & France from Terrible Reprisals, by the invading Armies of the Combined Countries of Europe, Russia, and England. The Battle of Ligny by Grouchy, & Count Blucher and the Prussians was a Really minor Engagement, which hampered the French of Men, but more so of Thier additional Artillery. During the Battle the Anglo Armies defense of the Two Farm's in the Center. Ended up being the Deciding Factor's in the French Defeat, along with the Destruction of the Calvary Forces as well. That's My POV, and My Opinion of that. Thanks for Sharing, & May God Bless You All.
I don’t think quaid did that bad of a job here like most people I prefer the late Bill Paxton’s take but quaids Houston does have a subtle gravitas that I think with better writing could have been made for a great take on the figure
The Legend of the Yellow Rose of Texas Legend has it that Santa Ana was preoccupied in his tent with a young Mexican girl when Sam Houston's surprise attack began. Santa Ana was caught without his trousers and could not rally his troops in time. There is speculation if the Yellow Rose did indeed exist she may have been planted by Sam Houston or his men.
Santa Anna thinking himself the Napoleon of the West had to be the greatest delusion any military could make. Napoleon went to war against fully formed nations. Santa Anna fought for territory within his own country. It's just sad how he put his own soldiers and their families through so much of his delusions.
I have returned invaders. I am a descendant of General Santa Anna We are many and we will be Thousands and millions we will recover Texas LONG LIVE GENERAL SANTA ANA, 🇲🇽 OUT WITH THE TEXAS 🇺🇲
If Grouchy had changed his route and forced march to Waterloo, he would have caught Blucher strung out on the march, he obeyed Napoleons orders slowly and to the letter, he did this deliberately to ensure a French defeat, he then marched his command in good order back to France. He had lost belief and faith in Napoleon, and all he saw was endless war, costing the lives of tens of thousands more French men. I would say Grouchy made the right choice, just my opinion though.
Well, the writers really got their Wellington history wrong, but hey, it makes for good cinema and nobody knows very much about Quatre-Bras and Waterloo and the days that led up to it. Go learn some history, folks. You might like it and be able to tell the difference between Hollywood and reality.
Hermanos. Así. Queremos. Avanzar. Avanzar. Con. Todo López. Caira. En mis manos 🙌. Somos. Familia una sola familia. Creo en route las libertad 🗽. Nosotros. No podemos.tener. división Queremos. La cabeza. Se requiere. Para. Formar. Nuestra. Política. 🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽🤔
I gotta say this is a totally inaccurate summary of the events that took place before Waterloo. Wellington did not stay one step ahead of the French. In fact Napoleon managed to march on Wellington almost undetected, with Wellington himself stating that "Napoleon has humbugged me, by God; he has gained twenty-four hours' march on me." Napoleon managed to march in between Wellington and his ally the Prussians and attacked the Prussians while also attacking a crossroads that was the only way for the British to aid the Prussian army. As such the Prussians were defeated and Wellington was unable to help them. But, crucially, the Prussians moved northwards, providing Wellington the possibility of linking up their two armies against Napoleon. As such Wellington made his stand at Waterloo, with Napoleon trying to wipe him out before the Prussians could arrive. Unfortunately for Napoleon he failed, and the Prussians attacked Napoleon's flank while his attacks on Wellington failed, and thus he was defeated. It's just so inaccurate when you compare what Houston says in his speech, all that bologna about how Wellington "teased him with his presence" and "knew Napoleon would keep his army strung out". In fact Wellington was the one with his army overly strung out because he didn't know where Napoleon was going to strike, in a way Napoleon teased Wellington with his presence. In fact Wellington had 17,000 men who didn't even participate in the battle because he had deployed them too far to the right of his army thinking Napoleon might strike there.
@@lionelhutz5137 Not at all true, 1) it wouldn't have happened in the first place Wellington was very good at understanding his limitations and he much preferred to withdraw with his army in tact then fight a battle for the sake of pride 2) Even at Waterloo where he was expecting the Prussians he had 2 uncommitted Infantry divisions in chosen ground less then 2 miles north who would be able to cover a retreat if he was required to make one so all in all Wellington might have lost the battle but it is unlikely he would have been crushed given the preparations made.
@@lionelhutz5137 In what sense? The British had beaten French armies in practically ever battle in the war in Spain and of course sunk their entire fleet. Most of Wellingtons best units were actually in America in 1815. However British units did the hardest fighting out of anyone in the coalition, so if more British units were on the field instead of Dutch, Belgian etc its likely the victory would have been even more convincing
WHY TEXAS WAS BALKANIZED 1- The only truth for which the Mexican 🇲🇽 province of Texas was Balkanized, was because the Mexican central government of General Santa Anna declared slavery illegal in Texas. 2- Mexico prohibited the use of slavery in Texas as a form of work, Santa Anna abhorred slavery and the father of the nation of Mexico, Miguel Hidalgo, had abolished it in 1810. 3- The rebels US-Americans, many of them illegal immigrants in Mexican territory, did not like it at all, the Mexican law that eliminated slavery in Texas, quickly rose up in arms and declared Texas independent, US-American immigrants wanted to keep slavery as a legal form of work. 4- General Santa Anna, president of Mexico, did not allow the secession of Texas, since it was a Mexican 🇲🇽 province recognized in the constitution, it had no right to separate. 5- Santa Anna's army was an army poor in resources and weapons, it was not like Hollywood that shows it as a powerful army with the latest technology weapons, in reality the rebels used new weapons financed by Washington and Mexico fought with weapons of the time of its independence. 6- The Mexican soldiers were in his territory, the invaders were the US-Americans. 7- Thus began an armed conflict between both parties that led to the secession of Texas. 8- The Mexicans are the villains of a story badly told by the official historiography. 9- After the annexation of Texas to the United States, Texas was created as a slave state. 10- Before the civil war, many African-American slaves from Texas crossed the Rio Grande to be safe in Mexico from their captors, Mexico protected them with its anti-slavery laws. That's the truth, why don't they tell it?
Wellington did not win at Waterloo. Blücher sudden arrival and Grouchy inaction contributed to Napoleon losing the battle. Wellington was one of two major generals of two nations that won the day. But to say it was a grand victory for him and to leave out important elements in the battle just goes to show how little “good” history is given here.
People always talk about Waterloo but Spain was actually the beginning of the end for Napoleon, pretty much everything that could have gone wrong went wrong in Spain. It totally divided and exhausted his army. I forgot who this quote is from but they were speaking about the allied army that fought the French in Spain : "It was they who defeated Napoleon, Wellington just had better marketing."
Napoleon is one man dingus. Invading Spain was a necessity for the overall objective. The Hapsburgs had two major houses. One in Austria, and they established themselves in Spain. The Austrians who ruled Italy before battles like Marengo. “ Napoleon “ was mostly successful, because it led to nationalism. Italy and Germany are countries, are they not? The Imperial forces wanted to break the religious houses that were inflicting pain on the rest of Europe. Only like always the most wicked never want a war.
That's unfair...Wellington defeated French armies in pitched battles several times in the Peninsular War and fought all the hardest sieges to drive the French out. However the Spanish guerilla contribution indeed is probably quite unknown.
MrLantean Houston is saying that he's imagining a battlefield for himself, but he doesn't know what it is yet. He doesn't yet know the name of his own defining battlefield in this war, but he hopes it will be for him what Waterloo was for Wellington.
ensign beedrill So what he is searching for: his own Waterloo. Houston's army is on the verge of dissolving as the men thought that he was running away from Santa Anna. Houston was fully aware that his army is composed of volunteering armed civilians, not soldiers. Santa Anna's army was getting smaller during the pursuit as some had to be garrisoned along the way to maintain both supply and line of communication. Houston's army was only sufficient for just one battle and he was looking for one where his amy would prevailed over the Mexican army of Santa Anna.
He says "I do not know the name of the place I imagine" so what I think he's actually saying is he doesn't know the name of the place where they'll attack Santa Anna and his army.
the key point of the field of Waterloo was that it did NOT allow for any flanking movement, that being Napoleons forte while Wellington was at his best at the defence. He did NOT retreat for the French, but allowed his Dutch/Belgian troops to be mauled by Ney and the Prussians by Napoleon (forgetting his promise to move with all haste to the help of his allies) while he took up position at Waterloo from all around the UKN. He then proceeded to coming very close to defeat, despite terrible blunders by Napoleon and his generals, to get his ass saved by Blucher who DID remember his promise
Frederik rubbish. The two allied generals worked well together to save Europe. The only truth in what you say is Wellington chose a great defensive position to blunt Napoleon.
I saw this movie but forgot about this scene. I just saw the Waterloo(1970) which was terrific. Wellington had scouted the area in 1814 and had surveyers maps drawn up. As soon as he heard where Napoleon would be coming from, he set his trap. The positioning on the downslope of a ridge made Napoleon's artillery mostly ineffective.
Though in typical British style he tried to support the Prussians at Ligny despite wanting to fight at Waterloo, as is also often the case with British forces historically (We don't do the last minute cavalry thing so well) he failed whether by accident or on purpose I am unsure.
@@Delogros Houston's strategy worked perfect at San Jacinto. Wait out the enemy until you have better position and the opportunity 🙏
Saw movie, loved it. And Houston waited till Mexican army was having a siesta, in short he timed it down to a T.
Houston was a remarkable person. I don't know everything about him, but he was very accomplished and intelligent. He was governor of both Tennessee and Texas. He was president of the republic of Texas. Without him, Texas wouldn't have won their independence. When they caught Santa Anna, everyone wanted to execute him. But Houston kept him alive to secure Texas as a republic. He was right about a lot of things in his life. It's sad his last years were in turmoil as he was opposed to Texas leaving the union during the civil war. He was ostracized for it, when he knew that it was not in the best interest of Texas and they would lose in the end.
I think he was also patient. Everyone else wanted revenge and to fight the Mexicans right away. He put aside emotions so he could make a good decision based on strategy and not anger or vengeance. There’s a lesson in it
Litteraly his last words were "martha...Texas"
Houston was a key part, but believe me gringo, We mexicans could NEVER stand a chance against the giant of the North, we would´ve lost half of our territory anyways. With or without any of the heroes of the texan war. With or without our Santa Anna shit. 21 Gun salute from México City. DON´T MESS WITH TEXAS.
He also tried to stop the south seceding from the Union. Warning that the Yankees were a force not to reckon with.
At least he supported the confederates at the end of his life. His children even fought in their army.
This is why history is important
Great comment, Sir
I’ve been to that battle field east of Houston more than once. Even on a hot day I get chills standing where the Texians (as they called themselves) defeated Santa Anna.
Santa Anna really did call himself the "Napoleon of the West". Yeah, he wished.
oldedude51 what’s interesting is Robert E Lee divides his force and defeated a numerically superior foe.
He was a shrewed politician, however a terrible commander.
@@tannerjordan3754 It actually IS kinda ironic that Lee and so many future confederates officers actually fought the same dictator and army in the 1840s that the Texians did just a decade earlier. Maybe that was where he was inspired with that tactic.
Santa Anna was the "Mexican Napoleon Bonaparte" because he was a great strategist, he even made you tremble. To the gringos
@@tannerjordan3754 but lee was also a great tactition,he was actually lincolns first choice as general for the union army before the war broke out
Gives me chills every time
Houston won Texas from the greatest tyrant in North America, and led it strongly. May his name reign forever in Texas history.
whenever i see houston and texas in the same sentence, i keep thinking of the sport team
Pfff, the Texans only wanted independence from Mexico because they had outlawed slavery. They wanted the freedom to own slaves.
@@royroland3884 Lmfao yep, that's *the only reason* why 🤡....
@@royroland3884 yeah definitely not banning immigration a
@@royroland3884 ah yes, the progressive and forward thinking mexicans, theyve made mexico the utopia it is today. Santa anna wanted to post mexican soldiers in texas.
My wife and I both had relatives that fought with Sam Houston at San Jacinto.
He was a remarkable person, too bad we have too few like him now.
Hardship and trials are the whetstone that sharpen a persons character and make them into a fine blade. You cannot make them happen and not all "blades" endure the test, some break under the merest pressure. Be glad for any person such as he we meet and try to be like them.
Wasn't he reported to mortify his flesh by rubbing himself down with a curry-comb normally used on horses?
@@edwardhogan1877 , no one is perfect, some of the more remarkable people in history has been the biggest murderers for what they though was a good cause and personally totally different to their public life.
You have BIDEN 💤
I always cry during this movie. So many men died for our freedom and for Texas independence. We should never forget the Alamo or San Jacinto days.
And Mexico 🇲🇽 too
Don't forget Goliad.
no olviden el alamo
@@martincastro7406 no Mexicans died for freedom, they fought to crush it.
@@greattribulation1388 There were plenty of people of Mexican descent fighting on the side of Texas independence. It's time you learned about them instead of making assumptions.
Interesting history related to Sam Houston and Lin Manuel Miranda of Broadway Hamilton. The grandfather of Lin Manuel 4-5 generations back named David Towns gave the toast speech at the wedding of the Governor Texas Sam Houston. Quote from book excerpt. "perhaps the most unusual toast was made by an old friend of Margarets father, Major Townes, who had been designated "President of the day" brought cheers from the crowd with his eloquent tribute:" I presume our honored guest will not deny in spite of all his San Jacinto and other victories, that he has been compelled to trail his banner and bow suppliant knee at the feet of our fair townswoman. I give you therefore, gentleman, if not of a better man than General Houston, that of one whom he himself will admit to be his "better half"-the Conqueress of the conqueror-Mrs Margaret M. Houston." No doubt Houston enjoyed the toast.
i live 10 miles from San Jacinto Battleground and thank God every day for allowing me to live among the proud descendants of the greatest state in the Union.
„All warfare is based on deception.“ Sun Tzu
Makorav from modern warfare 3
That's actually wrong. War is deception was actually said by Mohammed, one of the greatest and most violent warlords that ever lived and more than likely the antichrist himself. I doubt he read the Art of War as he could not read.
Appear strong when u are weak....and weak when u are strong ....makes one wonder about China today...😳
@@marcoslaureano5562 I think a fair number of people probably said that throughout history, not just Sun Tzu and the illiterate merchant.
@@escobarmark350 HOW THE HELL DOES MAKAROV KNOW YOU?
While Wellington was at his best on the defensive, and he did indeed commit a few mistakes during the battle, Napoleon's ego got the better of him here. He ascribed to the axiom 'In war, morale is everything' and didn't respect any commander that was anything but French nationality. By respecting an enemy, you learn to never be taken by surprise. Houston was very aware his very brittle army had, at the most, one good fight in them. He was also aware by staying one step ahead of the Mexican army, Santa Anna would, in his fervor to catch him, splinter his army and march them to exhaustion, depriving them of any fighting prowess.
Steve Harris don't forget the Prussians
'Anyone who says Wellington was best as a defensive or is mainly a defensive general, knows nothing about Wellington.' Bernard Cornwell.
ua-cam.com/video/m75oD17lLLw/v-deo.html for your Wellington education with love xx
I have studied Wellington for years, to define him as a "Defensive General" is to show that you have not studied his campaigns in India or The Peninsula. You don't out manoeuvre marharratta cavalry using infantry without being offensive. You do not crush the Marshalls of France by defending. You do not storm Badajoz (without even the aid of siege guns) by being defensive.
If it wasn't for Ney's fucking charge (and indirectly napoleons hernia/stomach cancer), Wellington would've been beaten. It took a bit for him to take the bait, but the diversion attack on Hougoumont had allowed La Haye Saint to be taken, and wellington was moving to his reverse slope to get out of napoleons artillery. Napoleon would've seen this and not taken the bait, instead opting to secure his gains and wait for his supposed 'reinforcements'. Had Grouchy came directly to the engagement after that he would've stood a very good chance of routing wellingtons army and bringing the coalition to the peace table. Even without Ney's charge, it was a done deal when the prussians arrive.
Dennis Quad played Houston very well
Indeed. Fantastic performance!
Agreed, they were all well casted.
It made up for him getting pantsed by Kilmer playing Doc Holliday in Tombstone 🤣🤣
Houston Texas is named after him, right?
STEVE P yes
ensign beedrill wasn't he also President of Texas before Texas joined the Union as a State?
+STEVE P Yes. He was also a governor and senator after Texas became a state.
STEVE P Yes. He was also a governor and senator after Texas became a state.
thanks.
he's talking about San Jaciento
Jacinto actually
San Jacinto! I lived right next to the washburn tunnel where Santa Anna was captured. It's kinda run down. Not taken care of. Right next to a big oil refinery
@@suicideheadaches4460 That's kinda sad for Texan history :/ (btw i am texan)
San Jacinto *
I have an ancestor who fought at San Jacinto. I lived in Brenham Texas for 17 years, spitting distance from Washington on the Brazos and Independence.
I was born in Aurora, Colorado. At ten years I moved to Alabama. Here I stay. But I stand with Texas!
What drew your family to Sweet Home Alabama may I ask?
an old strategy can be useful in these days... it depends on what age where are, but to imagine how they use the strategy, sometimes is helpful... sometimes...
History is always doomed to repeat itself.
@@fallenberet7955 no
@@eric11 Yes. Sorry bro, you'll lose again.
That’s why “The art of war” is still a great read.
@@eric11 Yeah, that is true actually.
I randomly found this video made a-la-carte for me! 🤣 just what I was looking for 😂
San Jacinto doesn’t look anything like that btw.. it’s mostly marshland. Flooded at sea level with no room for massive troop, or ordinance movement. He basically trapped them by the beach and then rushed right into them.
great speech
what Houston didn't say was Waterloo was visited by him before hand well before the battle and had people doing a survery of the area
Waterloo?
@@martincastro7406 He means Wellington. He had chose the terrain over a year before the battle took place.
@@VRichardsn thank you for clarifying that. I don't even know where the heck that came from.
@@falcon3268No problem; glad to be of help.
Key pieces of History such as those's are So Cool too Learn. When Great Leader's or Men of incredible Vision can Plan or Strategically set up the Demise of another accomplished Leader. By Simply analysing & calculating Thier Movements. Unto Thier ultimate Defeat or Repulse by reading Thier Over Confidence into Thier Habits. Case in Point was Sam Houston, before The Battle of San Jacinto, & Santa Anna, or in 1863 at Chancellorsville, when Robert E Lee, pulled Off His Stunning Defeat of Joe Hooker there. There have been many Such Great Deeds performed Over the Centuries by Very Great Leaders. Thank You for Sharing with US.
It was really weird and took me out of the movie when Sam Houston started singing and dancing to ABBA
I love that hidden side to him, also!
Waterloo: I was defeated, you won the war.
He can be such a dancing queen!
but can you hear the drums Fernando?
Great scene!
Sam Houston was a man of principle, loyalty and honor. He was the only member of the Texas legislature to oppose secession and he paid the price for it.
I'm a Houston too we must be related, from the same Scottish stock.
Both of Houston's parents were descended from Scottish and Irish immigrants who had settled in Colonial America in the 1730s. Houston's father was descended from Ulster Scots people.
Remember the Alamo!
Amazing segment right there.
Thank you Father Texas. We may have to be the Republic that you once envisioned, again.
He wanted his good friend Andrew Jackson to annex TX & prob didnt care about the republic except to expedite statehood.. Travis was nuts for trying to hold the Alamo w/ so few men tho. Maybe if Houston hadnt been drunk.in east Texas dreaming of former DC glory he could have established better comms between Goliad & Alamo and they could have helped this grand Wellington/ R E Lee plan he talks about in this clip but I'm afraid that the reality was prob much more political than noble unfortunately for those who lived in between Mexico City and San Jacinto TX
Make Texas Great Again
I thought Stephen F Austin was the father of Texas
Wellington in real life had scouted Waterloo in advance and already knew where he would make his stand. This retelling also omits the Prussian army that hit Napoleon’s flank causing the utter defeat. Not saying Sam himself made this error in a potential retelling but this movie made that mistake
This makes me proud to be a texan!
Wise man. Let the enemy defeat themselves by walking into a trap of their own making.
he gave my 9th grandfather...the farm we have today
lol
@@MrScovanx
It is an awesome speech/scene but a poor description of what actually happened during the Waterloo campaign.
Amazing movie wish Texas Rising didn't end up being such a big letdown barely any movies out there about the Texas Revolution.
Yeah, it stank
I agree.
You have to almost try to screw up as bad as they screwed up Texas Rising. The source material is out there, the interest is out there, they even dug up Brendan Fraser. But they still screwed it up.
it's because he had Sharpe on his side.
Attacking the enemy when their used to little resistance and capturing the president of Mexico Santa Anna?
That’s soldiering...
#unexpectedsharpereference
@@cutlassken6194 You're Goddamn Right
Waterloo...now that was a battle!!!
Most importantly, Wellington tried to find an opportunity to crush Napoleon's army between his and Blucher's.
@Hoa Tattis Thats another way of saying what I wrote
@Hoa Tattis
Read better
What I said was "Wellington tried to find an opportunity to crush Napoleon's army between his and Blucher's"
That did not mean Wellington's army had to move at all, in fact his plan was for Blucher to come to him.
And pre-battle Wellington did move, to Waterloo from Quatre Bras, to entice Napoleon to follow him, after he received Blucher's promise of aid.
@Hoa Tattis I understood it perfectly well.
It seems that your understanding of the English language leaves something to be desired though.
@Hoa Tattis If it is you would have understood that this statement:
"Wellington tried to find an opportunity to crush Napoleon's army between his and Blucher's"
....did not mean that Wellington is moving around. Wellington could have stayed perfectly still, and had Blucher come to him, and thats still crushing Napoleon between him and Blucher. Simple English.
@Hoa Tattis If I recall you are the one who showed up and started bothering me with your inane comments.
A true student of history.. also, If this were family feud what’s the number one country that would allow a disgraced general to return to warfare?
Payback was swift and thorough for our Texas heroes that day!
Beautiful
Santa Ana’s army was very strong in the Texas Revolution it was a modern well disciplined force. But by the Mexican American war it was a rabble. In Mexico City there is a memorial called the cadets and it memorializes children in the cadet school who fought for the defense of Mexico City. It shows you how shamed the whole officer tree of Santa Ana had become that they had fallen to be such great cowards. Once something to be proud of tho
The monument to the cadets is about a sacrifice that took place in the Mexican-American War, about 12 years after the events of the movie.
It's a movie of course they will show the Mexican army as very powerful and santa Anna very evil. Yet the Texas rebels were fighting for the right to own slaves
Houston was one bad ass.
Great movie
Best movie ever seen.
In the course of traveling Wellington had actually ridden over what became the Waterloo battlefield some months before and recorded his thoughts on how the topography could be used in battle.
Not then knowing he'd have a chance to test that.
It was a matter of getting to it first such that Napoleon had to attack him on ground Wellington judged as favouring his preferred defensive and counterpunching strategy.
We were actually losing the battle, Napoleon had sent the Imperial Guard forward, Blücher with his Prussian Armie that appeared on the skyline that tipped it in our our way. (The French thought it was Marshcal Ney), after that they broke and fled.
@@neilwattis1651
Grouchy not Ney
@@neilwattis1651No we werent. This argument always makes it sound like chance. The Prussians arrival had been planned back and forth between the two so it would have the maximum effect.
The entire point of the battle was to get Napoleon to fully commit. Once he did it was simply a matter of the forces against him holding out until the Prussian arrival completed the noose.
They were not riding to the rescue they were arriving to carry out their agreed role in the battle.
I consider Houston to be more of a Kutuzov than a Wellington.
That would be a better comparison but the intended english speaking audience is more likely to have heard of Waterloo rather than Borodino.
My first thought too when I saw this scene
good one
Sam Houston Speech Waterloo, The Battle of San Jacinto
Santa Anna called himself "Napoleon of The West" while abandoned most of his artillery in San Jacinto Campaign. 😂😂😂
And again. Texans with American rifles,
But Santa Ana's Great Mexan Army did have similiar Riflemen armed exactly with Green Jackets's Baker Rifles! and said he used this 'Riflemen' (Cazaroes?) in Alamo. The very same weapon Wellington's army has when he deployed his famous 95th Rifles in Waterloo and fought in Linear Infantry style just like any footmen and stood their ground against Napoleon's Army including his mighty Imperial Guard.
Note that Mexican Army uniform is loosely followed French Grand Armee while US Army of that time looked very similiar to Prussians in the late Napoleonic Wars. very simplified to cope with severed production capacities of that time.
I mean it's great that hes giving Wellington some mega credit. But that's really not what happened.
Well actually he did, "Opportunity to flank", which was what the Prussians did, they literally poured into Nap's flank, Wellington needed only to hold on long enough.
Wellington had said several times he had seen the Waterloo battle field more than a year prior to the real event, and had kept it in mind ever since. He had stayed in Belgium because it was the most unobstructed route to the sea and for Blucher and if necessary any Russian forces to arrive unimpeded. He had been scouting and manoeuvring all around southern Belgium trying to figure out where Napoleon would strike. So yes, what he said was exactly what happened.
He (or rather person who wrote this script), mixed Wellington's tactics in Spain with actual Waterloo. One true thing is, that it was mostly Napoleon's mistakes, and more importantly his staff's and senior subordinates, that ensured his defeat.
This Movie was a flop at the Box Office. But I liked it.
I wonder what men like this would think of the world today. I doubt they would be impressed.
they be horrified, because they thought that black people and Mexicans shouldn't be equal, so thank God we don't live in their horribly unequal world anymore
Not at all, they would be outraged that they did all this for nothing
can you tell me why we should care what Sam Houston would think of 2023?
@@philipkelly7369 I didn't suggest that we should.
They would be leading another revolution against the DC CARTEL. No doubt!
I think Napoleon Was a way better politician and person then Santa Anna Ever was.
Napoleon also had great PR. Most of the planet have heard of him, whilst Santa Anna is relatively unknown in the wider world.
he did relegalize slavery so maybe not that great of a politician
1:35 Actually no one in Mexico called Santa Anna the "Napoleon of the West" , as far as I know Santa Anna told that to Houston to impress him after Santa Anna was captured at San Jacinto.
Happy San Jacinto Day 2020!
Listen to ABBA people, they know the truth.
Whar most people don't realise, and the British don't like to admit it, but Wellington was actually born in Ireland.
Yea but adopted English culture and spoke with an English accent he considered himself English and spent most of his life in England when someone referred to him as Irish he said “just because a man is born in a stable does not make him a horse.”
Sam Houston literally had Santa Anna tied up, the entire Texas calvary huddled around him and Santa Anna. The Texans wanted to execute Santa Anna, and Houston could have done it with ease but he chose to free him in exchange for Texas. Another fun fact about Houston, when the debate came up in the Texas capital, whether they should join the confederacy, Houston argued that Texas needed to remain Texas and not part of any confederacy. He didn’t feel the confederate’s war was a Texas war. Obviously Texas would vote to join the confederacy anyway.
"You all settle for blood. I want Texas"
It should also be noted that Sam Houston refused to take an oath to the Confederacy, or to resign as Governor. He was deposed!
He wanted to keep Texas completely OUT of the coming war! Like Switzerland! Others saw it as an opportunity to take the office for themselves, and further their own ends, which ultimately FAILED.
Also, of all the slave states, Texas had the fewest. And everyone forgets the four slave states that stayed in the union; Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri.
I think Houston was hoping to reform the Republic of Texas, and keep it OUT of DC politics; it's well known he HATED DC politics!
He loved Texas.
In 1836 John Tyler was four years from becoming president. In 2023 John Tyler has a living grandson.
Everyone from Texas (including me) hold him in high regard. And we should, but we should also remember he got run out of Texas because he didn’t want to secede and join the Confederacy. Funny how we pick me choose out history
"Funny how we pick me choose out history"..Welcome to the real world.
Well then he was right both times
Texas...💯🤘🤘🤘🤘🍻🍻🍻
Actually, Wellington knew the ground a year and a half in advance, when viewing the area on horseback. He fought at Waterloo because he knew it was advantageous.
Makes it even that more impressive that fate led him to the spot to see it a year and a half later Napoleon was drawn toward it.
@@smthcrazy Well, Wellington retreated to the area specifically, as I recall.
While Confederate Independence will forever be shaded by the Dark Cloud of Slavery, Texan Independence really CAN be looked back on with pride, in the same manner as our original American Revolution, as both countries truly were founded on the basis of liberty and democracy, against a tyrant.
It begs the question: had Texas simply seceded from the Union and remained neutral, would the North have still invaded Texas as well?
@@jameskrych7767 yes... but Texas sesseeded from the Union to protect slavery... just like the rest of the Confederate States, so it would make no sense for them NOT to join the C.S.A., which is why they did.
They had the same enemies and the same endgoals, THAT'S why all the Confederate State's sessesions from the Union were tainted, they all sesseeded to protect slavery, even if (for whatever reason) they didn't join the C.S.A.
Back during the Texas Revolution against Mexico, the Texans sesseeded from Mexico to protect THEMSELVES, Santa Anna was a ruthless Dictator, and MANY Mexican States and territories rebelled at the same time, for the same reasons.
@@dilloncrowe1018 I am reminded of an old but timely verse from Scripture: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."
If it were only slavery.
Perhaps losing 80 plus percent of all Federal revenue was a major cause to go to war.
The North wanted empire, and the South wanted independence.
@@jameskrych7767 I've heard this argument before and it is... completely wrong...
@@jameskrych7767 federal revenue back then came from import taxes, and it most all came from Northern State's, New York merchants alone had been paying over 60% of all the governments federal revenue, at least 5 years before the American Civil War.
26 La Raza an LULAC supporters thumbs down this excerpt.🤣 LONG LIVE TEXAS!
I guess he sure gave Santa Anna his "Waterloo" at the Battle of San Jacinto!
Napoleon was bound to defeat Napoleon if the Prussians did not arrive in the battlefield. With Grouchy not intercepting the Prussians, that left Napoleon vulnerable and he had decided to commit the Old Guard against the well positioned British center that delivered disciplined fire in a last ditch attempt
Wellesley also said ''The French came at us in the same old way, and we beat them in the same old way.Check out his Peninsula campaign,he beat every French marshal Napoleon sent against his army.
Wrong. General Dubreton defeated him at the siege of Burgos
@@eddiemoran8044 He wasn't a marshal
@@johnord684 I didn’t say that he was, in fact that should add more salt to the wound since it wasent even a marshal but a “regular” general.
This information is wrong. Houston used the same strategy that Rome used against Hannibal in Italy.
Sam had his dates wrong. This scene took place in 1836. Waterloo was only 21 years previously not "forty odd years ago"
1:14 Wellington had an opportunity to flank Napoleon?
Blitzofthereich He probably meant that there was an opportunity for Napoleon to be flanked by Blucher and the Prussian army, which is what happened at Waterloo.
Houston doesn't know the Waterloo campaign very well...but that's not really surprising. Most amateurs don't know it.
Wellington attempted to fight part of Napoleon's 'splintered' force at Quatre Bras a few days before Waterloo. He was unsuccessful at uniting with Blucher's Prussian army which was defeated at Ligny by the main body of Napoleon's force.
Wellington then fell back to Waterloo, as it was a defensible position on the road to Brussels from whence he could be reached by Blucher's redeploying army. He did not 'bait' Napoleon...nor did he 'move and wait.' He KNEW Napoleon would be focused on destroying his army. So he positioned himself in a place that he thought victory might be possible if he could hold out long enough...i.e., until mid-afternoon the next day (he roughly knew the position of Blucher's advancing Corps).
In the event, Napoleon dithered when disposing his pursuing troops after Ligny (a whole 24 hours!) and then wasted the morning of the Waterloo battle waiting for the ground to dry...he didn't begin his battle until 11AM. Blucher's forces were on the field flanking Napoleon by 1:30 PM, and was in force sufficient to deny victory to Napoleon by 4-5PM.
But hey...when trying to get your men to do what they must...you come up with a good story!
I don't disagree with everything here but just to point out the leading Prussian elements arrived on Wellington left flank and reinforced it, Prussian troops didn't arrive on the French flank till much later.
it's also worth pointing out that at Quatre Bras Wellington wasn't fighting the Splinted French force with his full army which I'm sure you know I'm just clarifying it, Wellington himself arrived late in the day and for over half the battle the Anglo-Allied army was outnumbered, like i say only the clarification because from your post it makes it sound like Wellington had his full army at Quatre bras when he didn't.
Good clarifications, you are correct about Quatre Bras.
Wellington was sort of sipping on gasps of air and sips of hope at Waterloo himself. The entire chance of victory hinged on the Prussians. Without the Prussians, Wellington loses. Napoleon had to use all of Lobau's corps, two cavalry divisions, the young guard, as well as elements of the old guard to hold the Prussians at Plancenoit(for hours and hours I might add.) Had the Prussians not made it to Waterloo, or if Grouchy had been able to avoid fighting at Wavre and intercepted them en route, Napoleon would have had all those forces he used against the Prussians to instead throw at Wellington. Wellington's center was a breath away from collapsing after the fall of La Haye Sainte. He was able to concentrate what remained of his army behind the ridge between Hougomont and La Haye Sainte only because the Prussians showed up and took over his left. Had none of this happened, and Napoleon had the entirety of Lobau's corps and the Imperial Guard to still throw at Wellington, there is but little doubt his army would have broken. The French Imperial Guard were by far the best troops on the planet at the time. Had they been able to close with Wellingtons forces, none of them, not even the Coldstream Guard, were a match for the French Imperial Guard. That isn't to say it was all luck for Wellington. He moved his knights and bishops with considerable skill during most of the day. He was cool as a cucumber and did not panic whenever things weren't going his way. His choice of terrain was masterful and there is no question that he was the man who could hold Napoleon at bay long enough for the Prussians to arrive. Wellington won at Waterloo, and he deserves his place in history. But its just as much Blucher's victory as well. To often the Prussians are treated as a footnote at Waterloo, when in reality, the battle would not have been won without them.
Priussians tend to be a foot note because of when they turned up more then anything else but of course your right it's probably most accurate to say neither could have won without the other.
Just a side note you may not have known, Wellington had positioned 2 fresh infantry divisions (16,000 men) about 2 miles north of him, he decided it was better to have an exit strategy and effective fresh rear guard rather then have a numerical superiority on the battlefield itself, I find that both smart and ballsy :)
@@Delogros The 'when they turned up' depends on which source you believe. Wellingtons "Waterloo despatch" gives their arrival late in the afternoon. Both Prussian and French sources give the arrival of the first Prussians at 13:00.
But you're right, nobody could win without the other.
As a side note to your side note: it was not just an exit strategy that prompted Wellington to post those divisions to the rear. They were mainly Dutch/Belgian troops, and he had serious doubts they would remain loyal when faced with Napoleon himself (most of their officers had served in the Grande Armee), so he wanted them well out of the way.
@@GorinRedspear I would take the Prussian arrival time as when they could be combat effective, but that would take research which as I am a Key worker and so not locked in with nothing better to do, I don't wanna do :)
Side notes are awesome. Wellington run allied armies tended to have mixed Divisions, in Spain/Portugal it was usually 1 Portuguese Brigade with 2 British Brigades to make up a division with the exception of the light and 1st divisions and 1 fully Portuguese division which where special cases, but I have no reason to think the main thrust of your information is wrong and it makes perfect sense, these things did happen after all, possibly most famously at Leipzig? Where 9,000 Saxons changed sides in the middle of the fighting. Can we do 3 side notes to side notes? Lets try! :D
@@Delogros I admit it was only the Prussian advance troops that started dripping in, but even so they forced Napoleon to act.
When an advance guard is arriving, the main force is not that far behind, and every soldier he sent to contain them was one he could not send to Wellington.
My main source in all this are the works of Johan Op De Beeck, a retired Belgian journalist who wrote a few works on Napoleon (and the period right after) as seen from the perspective of the Low Countries. It gives for some very novel, and sometimes disturbing insights.
Did you know that Wellington was actually informed hours before he acted that the French had pushed north? But because the news had come from general Van Merlen, who had (literally) earned his spurs in the French Army, and even to that day cherished his Legion D'Honneur, he lost valuable time waiting for confirmation.
The original message was that Dutch/Belgian Light Horse, while patrolling the border had ran into French Dragoons just north of the border and routed them.
The confirmation was that the French had almost reached Charleroi...
I agree: side notes are awesome.
Van Merlen was killed at Waterloo in between charges. He had already led four charges into Ney's massive cavalry charge to relieve some pressure on Wellingtons squares. A cannonball disemboweled him, and his body was never found.
@@GorinRedspear awww... Now I feel sad... Waterloo was a very complicated situation for the allies and particularly the Anglo-allied army, I don't blame Wellington for being suspicious as a result, though hind sight is a wonderful thing.
Okay just so we are clear, that is, in no way, an accurate description of what happened preceding Waterloo. There was a Prussian army under Blucher outside the town of Ligny, and an anglo-allied army to his north. Napoleon, in typical fashion, moved quickly and engaged the prussians at Ligny and defeated them, driving them eastward and sending Marshall Grouchy after them. He then swung around to hit Wellingtons army from the east (imagine a figure 8 and hitting the bottom loop from the left, and top loop from the right.) Wellington hastily selected Waterloo because it had a small hill in the center, and 3 farmhouses to anchor his right, left, and center positions and dug in to repel the French onslaught. It was anything but a foregone conclusion and were it not for Grouchy's incompetence, Napoleon's lack of artillery, and Blucher's angry old man tenacity, they would have won at Waterloo half a dozen times over.
Hey Lesser Son. You are Entitled to Your Opinion No Doubt. But after the Heavy Fighting by both Sides that Day. And the Foolish Waste of the French Cavalry on the English & Anglo Army Square's that late Afternoon, at Waterloo.
When Napoleon sent in His Grand Old Guard at the Last. He Knew then that the Battle was already Lost. And His Bolt had been Shot upon that Field. With the Coalition formed, & against Him. He knew He didn't have the Men at Arm's, the Logistics or even the Support of the Population of France too Continue the War. After the Battle of Waterloo, Napoleon even Surrendered Himself too the Foreign Power's, Authorities. To Save Paris & France from Terrible Reprisals, by the invading Armies of the Combined Countries of Europe, Russia, and England. The Battle of Ligny by Grouchy, & Count Blucher and the Prussians was a Really minor Engagement, which hampered the French of Men, but more so of Thier additional Artillery. During the Battle the Anglo Armies defense of the Two Farm's in the Center. Ended up being the Deciding Factor's in the French Defeat, along with the Destruction of the Calvary Forces as well. That's My POV, and My Opinion of that. Thanks for Sharing, & May God Bless You All.
The scenario about napoleon and waterloo is not true although the outcome was correct.welington himself said it was too close we almost lost.
I don’t think quaid did that bad of a job here like most people I prefer the late Bill Paxton’s take but quaids Houston does have a subtle gravitas that I think with better writing could have been made for a great take on the figure
Waterloo was muddy. That's why it was picked by Wellington.
and he was wearing his wellingtons, napoleon wasnt. Et voila
Jim Houston was actually a scary man haha he was not to be messed with
The Legend of the Yellow Rose of Texas
Legend has it that Santa Ana was preoccupied in his tent with a young Mexican girl
when Sam Houston's surprise attack began. Santa Ana was caught without his trousers and could
not rally his troops in time. There is speculation if the Yellow Rose did indeed exist she may have been
planted by Sam Houston or his men.
Houston's hat seems a bit outdated to be wearing in the 1830's..
Probably his grandad's old colonial hat!
the mexican's guns seemed a bit outdated to be using in the 1830's
Me da gracia ven tanto patriota cuando los texanos querían la independencia para tener esclavos.
Santa Anna thinking himself the Napoleon of the West had to be the greatest delusion any military could make. Napoleon went to war against fully formed nations. Santa Anna fought for territory within his own country. It's just sad how he put his own soldiers and their families through so much of his delusions.
Can anyone tell me this movie plz
The Alamo (2004)
I have returned invaders. I am a descendant of General Santa Anna We are many and we will be Thousands and millions we will recover Texas LONG LIVE GENERAL SANTA ANA, 🇲🇽 OUT WITH THE TEXAS 🇺🇲
If Grouchy had changed his route and forced march to Waterloo, he would have caught Blucher strung out on the march, he obeyed Napoleons orders slowly and to the letter, he did this deliberately to ensure a French defeat, he then marched his command in good order back to France. He had lost belief and faith in Napoleon, and all he saw was endless war, costing the lives of tens of thousands more French men. I would say Grouchy made the right choice, just my opinion though.
Well, the writers really got their Wellington history wrong, but hey, it makes for good cinema and nobody knows very much about Quatre-Bras and Waterloo and the days that led up to it. Go learn some history, folks. You might like it and be able to tell the difference between Hollywood and reality.
Hermanos. Así. Queremos. Avanzar. Avanzar. Con. Todo López. Caira. En mis manos 🙌. Somos. Familia una sola familia. Creo en route las libertad 🗽. Nosotros. No podemos.tener. división Queremos. La cabeza. Se requiere. Para. Formar. Nuestra. Política. 🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽🗽🤔
Wellington-FACT.
I gotta say this is a totally inaccurate summary of the events that took place before Waterloo.
Wellington did not stay one step ahead of the French. In fact Napoleon managed to march on Wellington almost undetected, with Wellington himself stating that "Napoleon has humbugged me, by God; he has gained twenty-four hours' march on me." Napoleon managed to march in between Wellington and his ally the Prussians and attacked the Prussians while also attacking a crossroads that was the only way for the British to aid the Prussian army. As such the Prussians were defeated and Wellington was unable to help them. But, crucially, the Prussians moved northwards, providing Wellington the possibility of linking up their two armies against Napoleon. As such Wellington made his stand at Waterloo, with Napoleon trying to wipe him out before the Prussians could arrive. Unfortunately for Napoleon he failed, and the Prussians attacked Napoleon's flank while his attacks on Wellington failed, and thus he was defeated.
It's just so inaccurate when you compare what Houston says in his speech, all that bologna about how Wellington "teased him with his presence" and "knew Napoleon would keep his army strung out". In fact Wellington was the one with his army overly strung out because he didn't know where Napoleon was going to strike, in a way Napoleon teased Wellington with his presence. In fact Wellington had 17,000 men who didn't even participate in the battle because he had deployed them too far to the right of his army thinking Napoleon might strike there.
Had Waterloo been a strictly French vs British affair, Napoleon would've crushed Wellington.
@@lionelhutz5137 Not at all true, 1) it wouldn't have happened in the first place Wellington was very good at understanding his limitations and he much preferred to withdraw with his army in tact then fight a battle for the sake of pride 2) Even at Waterloo where he was expecting the Prussians he had 2 uncommitted Infantry divisions in chosen ground less then 2 miles north who would be able to cover a retreat if he was required to make one so all in all Wellington might have lost the battle but it is unlikely he would have been crushed given the preparations made.
You are forgetting that a. Wellington picked the battle ground the previous year and b. asked for Blucher to be there by lunchtime...check mate!
@@lionelhutz5137 In what sense? The British had beaten French armies in practically ever battle in the war in Spain and of course sunk their entire fleet.
Most of Wellingtons best units were actually in America in 1815. However British units did the hardest fighting out of anyone in the coalition, so if more British units were on the field instead of Dutch, Belgian etc its likely the victory would have been even more convincing
WHY TEXAS WAS BALKANIZED
1- The only truth for which the Mexican 🇲🇽 province of Texas was Balkanized, was because the Mexican central government of General Santa Anna declared slavery illegal in Texas.
2- Mexico prohibited the use of slavery in Texas as a form of work, Santa Anna abhorred slavery and the father of the nation of Mexico, Miguel Hidalgo, had abolished it in 1810.
3- The rebels US-Americans, many of them illegal immigrants in Mexican territory, did not like it at all, the Mexican law that eliminated slavery in Texas, quickly rose up in arms and declared Texas independent, US-American immigrants wanted to keep slavery as a legal form of work.
4- General Santa Anna, president of Mexico, did not allow the secession of Texas, since it was a Mexican 🇲🇽 province recognized in the constitution, it had no right to separate.
5- Santa Anna's army was an army poor in resources and weapons, it was not like Hollywood that shows it as a powerful army with the latest technology weapons, in reality the rebels used new weapons financed by Washington and Mexico fought with weapons of the time of its independence.
6- The Mexican soldiers were in his territory, the invaders were the US-Americans.
7- Thus began an armed conflict between both parties that led to the secession of Texas.
8- The Mexicans are the villains of a story badly told by the official historiography.
9- After the annexation of Texas to the United States, Texas was created as a slave state.
10- Before the civil war, many African-American slaves from Texas crossed the Rio Grande to be safe in Mexico from their captors, Mexico protected them with its anti-slavery laws.
That's the truth, why don't they tell it?
Wellington did not win at Waterloo. Blücher sudden arrival and Grouchy inaction contributed to Napoleon losing the battle. Wellington was one of two major generals of two nations that won the day. But to say it was a grand victory for him and to leave out important elements in the battle just goes to show how little “good” history is given here.
People always talk about Waterloo but Spain was actually the beginning of the end for Napoleon, pretty much everything that could have gone wrong went wrong in Spain. It totally divided and exhausted his army. I forgot who this quote is from but they were speaking about the allied army that fought the French in Spain : "It was they who defeated Napoleon, Wellington just had better marketing."
Napoleon is one man dingus. Invading Spain was a necessity for the overall objective. The Hapsburgs had two major houses. One in Austria, and they established themselves in Spain. The Austrians who ruled Italy before battles like Marengo. “ Napoleon “ was mostly successful, because it led to nationalism. Italy and Germany are countries, are they not? The Imperial forces wanted to break the religious houses that were inflicting pain on the rest of Europe. Only like always the most wicked never want a war.
That's unfair...Wellington defeated French armies in pitched battles several times in the Peninsular War and fought all the hardest sieges to drive the French out.
However the Spanish guerilla contribution indeed is probably quite unknown.
Wellington was the Ailed commander in Spain the defeated every French army sent the fight him
One moment Houston said that he did not know the name of the battlefield where Napoleon and Wellington fought and the next he mentioned Waterloo.
MrLantean Houston is saying that he's imagining a battlefield for himself, but he doesn't know what it is yet. He doesn't yet know the name of his own defining battlefield in this war, but he hopes it will be for him what Waterloo was for Wellington.
ensign beedrill So what he is searching for: his own Waterloo. Houston's army is on the verge of dissolving as the men thought that he was running away from Santa Anna. Houston was fully aware that his army is composed of volunteering armed civilians, not soldiers. Santa Anna's army was getting smaller during the pursuit as some had to be garrisoned along the way to maintain both supply and line of communication. Houston's army was only sufficient for just one battle and he was looking for one where his amy would prevailed over the Mexican army of Santa Anna.
He says "I do not know the name of the place I imagine" so what I think he's actually saying is he doesn't know the name of the place where they'll attack Santa Anna and his army.
MrLantean
he was saying he didnt know the name of his waterloo, not Wellington's waterloo
he says he doesnt know the name of the battlefield of his Waterloo, with the meaning he doesnt know where will be that battlefield.
lol
CHRIST loves you and died for you 💔.
This tactic was chronicled by Julius Ceasar, I imagine this strategy goes back to the beginnings of WAR.
the key point of the field of Waterloo was that it did NOT allow for any flanking movement, that being Napoleons forte while Wellington was at his best at the defence. He did NOT retreat for the French, but allowed his Dutch/Belgian troops to be mauled by Ney and the Prussians by Napoleon (forgetting his promise to move with all haste to the help of his allies) while he took up position at Waterloo from all around the UKN. He then proceeded to coming very close to defeat, despite terrible blunders by Napoleon and his generals, to get his ass saved by Blucher who DID remember his promise
Frederik rubbish. The two allied generals worked well together to save Europe. The only truth in what you say is Wellington chose a great defensive position to blunt Napoleon.
inpaindaily